integration.convergence_check

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is deterministic, lists the decision outcomes, and mentions a 'fail-closed hard stop' for budget_exhausted. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., session state changes) or authorization needs, which would be expected for a zero-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and outcomes. Every part earns its place—there is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a stopping rule with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is too high-level. It does not explain how parameters influence the decision, the format of the return value, or how to use the output in a pipeline. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter meanings (e.g., rounds, min_gain, patience). The description only vaguely references 'per-round augment_compare scores' but does not map to the parameters, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool is a deterministic stopping rule for iterative edge integration, listing the four possible outcomes (continue, converged, noise_indistinguishable, budget_exhausted). It uses a specific verb 'decide' and resource 'stopping rule', making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when it should be invoked after augment_compare or the prerequisites for running it. No information about when not to use it is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.